Development v. Historical Preservation? 14 Gay Street in Greenwich Village

Submitted by BarbaraJames_75 t3_zubv42 in nyc

The NYT article: On Gay Street, Another Piece of NYC’s History Is Coming Down - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

From the article:

One Monday in late November, preservationists, politicians, neighbors and looky-loos gathered at dusk on Manhattan’s tiny Gay Street, a slim crescent in the heart of Greenwich Village, to protest the demolition of a nearly 200-year-old house there. The place in question, 14 Gay Street, is one of a clutch of six winsome but precarious early 19th-century buildings on Gay and Christopher Streets that were owned for decades by Celeste Martin, a singular character devoted to her properties and to the often eccentric cast of tenants she nurtured.

Ms. Martin died in late 2018, at 94, with no will and no close relatives, so the city took over her holdings, selling 14 Gay Street and its siblings for about $9 million to a buyer who flipped them last April to Lionel Nazarian, a 37-year-old developer, for about $12 million. Since then, Mr. Nazarian has done foundation work that has destabilized 14 Gay Street and imperiled its neighbors, so the city has ordered its demolition, a slow, laborious process that began just before Thanksgiving.

Chillingly, this scenario is one that is playing out all over the city, said Andrew Berman, the executive director of Village Preservation and the organizer of the November protest: As developers have been buying up vulnerable landmark properties, they are either allowing them to deteriorate or doing work that compromises public safety. In the last year, he said, more than a dozen such buildings have come down.

26

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

miabananaz t1_j1iqft2 wrote

If they're intentionally deteriorating historical buildings in order to circumvent regulations and build something brand new for housing, then it has to be stopped. It is a loophole that could put in danger any landmark, not just this one.

30

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j1kxauu wrote

It’s a common tactic now. There’s at least a dozen suspected incidents the past few years. They claim the stabilization work “failed” and it’s a safety risk.

9

BarbaraJames_75 OP t1_j1isyxe wrote

Or even just anybody's house or any apartment building, regardless of historical status.

It's a big area of construction law, allegations of damage to adjacent properties in the course of construction.

5

soupdumplinglover t1_j1k8qxr wrote

It’s one thing to demolish a building under consideration as a landmark before it is landmarked. But this building is already in a historic district, meaning the Landmarks Commission will need to approve whatever is proposed to be built on the site. So there’s about a 0% chance they will approve anything higher than what existed previously.

4

George4Mayor86 t1_j1isihm wrote

I’m all for it. We desperately need more housing. It’s absurd that people need to use these workarounds in the first place.

−2

miabananaz t1_j1isxdi wrote

No messing with the Greenwich village & West Village. We're not turning those into Midtown and have the city look like Dubai.

−1

Open-Abbreviations18 t1_j1l2p16 wrote

Oh so the outer boroughs have to look like Dubai instead? That's nice. Upzone everything. Literally everything.

2

miabananaz t1_j1ml72q wrote

My point is that Manhattan is on the right track, it has a high population density and amount of apartment units per square foot.

There are many other areas that are prime for development, where it would be much easier, faster and cheaper to do it. Keep doing it in Manhattan, but do it elsewhere too. There are areas within 40 minutes of Midtown with the train that are basically ghost towns throughout, and instead people would push hard to put something up in Soho, which as-is is already overcrowded, dirty where the infrastructure cannot keep up with all of it.

0

George4Mayor86 t1_j1it449 wrote

yes it’s very important that no unsightly newcomers live near the fancy white people

0

miabananaz t1_j1iunwx wrote

Manhattan is already the most densely populated borough, and this is without even factoring tourists + people who commute to work: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/census2010/m_pl_p2_nta.pdf

So it's not like it's not getting enough work.

What boggles my mind is why would you oppose more housing in the Bronx, since this will increase diversity? You frequently post in /r/DemocratsforDiversity . Are you for or against making the Bronx more diverse?

−1

George4Mayor86 t1_j1ivvcl wrote

I want more housing in the Bronx, and in Manhattan, and in the rest of the boroughs. Unlike you, I’m not a NIMBY who only wants anything new far away.

8

Hrekires t1_j1iec9y wrote

Is the house of historic note?

Blocking change just because buildings are old doesn't exactly seem sustainable when the population is growing every year and housing gets harder and harder to find.

19

BarbaraJames_75 OP t1_j1ikpg3 wrote

It was sufficiently of historic note for the landmarks commission to designate it and its neighbors as protected landmarks--it's within the greater Greenwich Village historic neighborhood.

The other is how the neighboring properties (and people who might live in them) are being affected by what could have been shoddy work.

8

ssn156357453 t1_j1jphve wrote

Also: don’t accept this line of thinking. Old buildings should be preserved regardless of historic status. It’s crazy how New Yorkers go and visit Paris and Amsterdam and Venice for vacation and then come back and want to destroy our own old buildings.

4

Hrekires t1_j1jqxmd wrote

Paris literally can't be built up because it's sitting on hollow ground.

The population of NYC was 122,000 when this building was constructed. It's 8,400,000 today. Need to put people somewhere.

7

ssn156357453 t1_j1jtjdq wrote

I’m not talking about building up. They could just destroy buildings to more efficiently house people. And forget about particulars, what about literally any major European city.

3

[deleted] t1_j1id87o wrote

This is so sad, I've long studied New York City urbanism and there is already so much of NYC's history that has been erased...

It's also striking that the exact same M.O. is followed by developers in Beirut for landmarked buildings. They cannot take them down so they fragilize them or leave them to rot. Or sometimes they send teams at night to destroy them quickly.

I understand that such tactics work in Beirut; the Lebanese state is weak and corrupt, and it's only in the past decade that preservationists have become mainstream. But how can this shit fly in NYC?

13

Rarablue0 t1_j1ld7a6 wrote

Because developers own this city. It’s been getting worse and worse and will only continue as capital continues to concentrate

2

nich2475 t1_j1jkgz8 wrote

Cities are nothing without their architectural heritage, and preservation is not anti-housing as many people believe. The politics that favor the rich and prevent the building of affordable housing is directly responsible. Tearing down historical homes (specifically architecturally significant ones) does nothing for the city in the long-run except erase its cultural heritage and individuality.

We demolished lots of buildings in the 60s for “progress” only to end up regretting most of it (old penn station for example). Grand Central was even on the chopping block for a starchitect’s (I.M. Pei) new glass tower, had not Jackie Kennedy and preservationists fought to protect it.

Just saying that progress and preservation are not mutually exclusive.

12

ssn156357453 t1_j1jptfe wrote

Why don’t we start destroying the single family houses in ozone park first before we start destroying historic townhouses in Greenwich village.

5

Open-Abbreviations18 t1_j1l2wa3 wrote

Take a picture of it. Put a plaque of it. Then tear down the whole neighborhood.

−7

nich2475 t1_j1msgrm wrote

And that sir, is climate arson and simply a hyper capitalist ideal.

−2

ooouroboros t1_j1k761b wrote

This is the building that is connected to "My Sister Eileen" - right?

Here is the whole movie on youtube - its shot in a hollywood studio I think but fun for fans of historical NYC. Its about 2 sisters from the midwest who move to Greenwich Village in the 1940's to seek fame and fortune. They move into a semi-basement/below street level apartment and lots of jokes about people walking by.

There is also a musical version of the same story from the 50's.

4

TheGrandExquisitor t1_j1kfst8 wrote

"HAHAHA...very funny guys!"

-Some guy named Christopher whose bros worked in city planning 250 years ago-

0

Wowzlul t1_j1j5u2e wrote

Is this supposed to make us scared or outraged?

Most people posting here aren't boomers who bought a house for a song in the '70s or camped out in a rent controlled apartment for the last 40 years. We're relatively young people paying market rent and desperately struggling to compete for ever scarcer housing.

So when I see complaints like this I find it hard to give a fuck. The city became the great place it is because it was never afraid to completely reinvent its built environment, a process that stopped cold about 40 years ago because certain people decided to lock in their good fortune and fuck the rest of us.

−1

ssn156357453 t1_j1jpnwi wrote

People like you don’t realize how much the character of old holdings adds to your feeling in that environment

−1

Dracomarine t1_j1jvs50 wrote

People like you don't understand that we need godamn housing in this city.

6

Rarablue0 t1_j1le30i wrote

There are so many more impactful places you could upzone. Queens, as the person you were replying to stated, has huge swaths dedicated to single family homes. Why are you getting so butthurt over these two small buildings and not the miles of R1 zoning in those areas? Same can be said for BX and SI.

Also, there is no realistic amount of housing that could be built in the next 20 years to adequately satiate global demand for units here. The government essentially subsidizes the rent for over 1 million units as a means of keeping blue collar workers in the city and to avoid the absolute shitshow forcing these people out would become if rent stabilization were repealed.

I’ve lived here 30+ years. I know it’s expensive as fuck, tearing down two landmark buildings will not make it cheaper for you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

1

Dracomarine t1_j1ma44o wrote

This city has risen as far as it has because of the willingness to change and adapt to new circumstances. People make the city, not buildings. Get out of here with the nonsense that we couldnt build enough. Since when has new york had that attitude(oh wait, since nimby's gained power). Until Queens gets good rail service, it isnt an option for deep development.

This city used to build things. What the hell happened?

3

Rarablue0 t1_j1mjbl3 wrote

My guy, the period you’re referring to was very well known for the existence of incredibly dense tenements. Much more so than today and with very little oversight into safety standards. The quality of life for individuals living in such buildings was quite low and their homes, in many instances, were basically firetraps.

There was more development going on but also a lot more disease, death, and suffering. This changed a bit after 1916 with the intro of the city’s zoning ordinances (the first of it’s kind in the country) and much more significantly in 61’ when the resolution was revisited and EXTENSIVELY updated. Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) established near there after (65’) and the rest, as they say, is history.

Im simply pointing out to you the reality of the situation. If you really wanted to make a dent in housing costs here, you’d upzone Queens immediately. I doubt even that would make a significant difference unless done very aggressively which would open up an entirely different can of worms.

And I don’t really appreciate your attitude towards me, calling me a NIMBY and such. I have been an advocate for affordable housing my entire life, my family dealt with tough times when I was growing up because of the excessive raising rents here. I worked as a city planner for 5 years and have a pretty good idea of how the development process works.

Regardless, Merry Christmas.

0

Dracomarine t1_j1mredb wrote

I mean, there is a middle ground between tennements and homelessness but I am done with this debate. The city needs housing and this nimbyism crap needs to end. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Just a metter of how long we are going to delay

4

kapuasuite t1_j1q503i wrote

Putting a bunch of people on the fringes of the city, where there’s limited mass transit, rather than Manhattan and the inner parts of Brooklyn and Queens, seems like a colossal mistake.

2

Wowzlul t1_j1rdft9 wrote

It's not a colossal mistake when you've got yours and wanna preserve your neighborhood character at the expense of the majority.

3

ssn156357453 t1_j1kpc1q wrote

Why can’t we tear down the single family homes in ozone first, then the historic townhomes in Greenwich village?

−1

Rarablue0 t1_j1legel wrote

Agreed. If any borough needs to be upzoned, it’s Queens.

You’ll get the same complaints from them though. I know many Queens natives who were born and raised there who complain nonstop at the sight of any new development. Same way I feel about these landmark buildings in the village.

It’s basically human nature to not want your childhood home/neighborhood to change. Unfortunately it’s a part of life, but if it’s gonna happen let’s at least start where it will actually make a small dent (Queens) rather than no dent at all (these two landmark buildings)

2

Wowzlul t1_j1ot2p1 wrote

> Why can’t we tear down the single family homes in ozone first

Because Ozone doesn't have the same access to world-class transportation and commercial districts holding metric fucktons of jobs and opportunity?

Wtf is this thread? It's like a lobbying group put it up

2

ssn156357453 t1_j1p4em2 wrote

Not true. A,J,Z, and E trains all go to the general area. And ozone is still in the city proper-it’s not like some far out suburb.

Queens has a Manhattan-sized region of inefficient housing. Why not start fixing that first before we start destroying old apartments and townhouses which have a smaller footprint and are historic.

2

Wowzlul t1_j1re778 wrote

Honest question. Have you ever been to Ozone Park? Do you know what it's like getting around in that part of the city compared to Manhattan? What's out there in terms of culture? What it's like taking the bus from strip-mall to strip-mall for your daily comings and goings? The long train ride to Manhattan to get to work?

Not saying that we shouldn't be striving to densify and improve Ozone. Of course we should. But Greenwich Village is situated in such a superior location as concerns jobs, amenities, and transportation - the three things that lift people out of poverty and allow for thriving communities - that it seems preposterous to wall it off from the same process of upzoning and redevelopment that you admit must take place in the outer boroughs.

There's a place for historic preservation. We all know the history of Robert Moses, Penn Station, the LOMEX, urban renewal gone too far. It's all very well known to anyone discussing these topics. But there's a balance to these things, and in the decades since then we have swung so wildly far in the other direction that I gotta admit that preserving every single historic building in the Village so some affluent boomer artists can live out their last days is very low on my priority list.

1

ssn156357453 t1_j1riknl wrote

Yes i have. And I don't just mean ozone. I mean flushing, jackson heights, maspeth, corona, elmhurst, forest hills...

And no one ever suggest destroying these communities when they are so inefficient. And all of these neighborhoods have parts very accessible to manhattan by train. It's also wrong to think that everyone would be taking the subway to commute or would be trying to get to Manhattan.

Upzoning the Greenwich village doesn't allow for affordable housing. It creates more expensive housing. This wouldn't be the case in corona.

Historic preservation shouldn't just apply to monuments or important train terminals–this was clear to Jane Jacobs.

1

Wowzlul t1_j1rjgn5 wrote

I'm not gonna respond to most of your comment because I feel like we've both made our points on those topics by now.

But there is one argument in here that drives me nuts:

> Upzoning the Greenwich village doesn't allow for affordable housing. It creates more expensive housing.

This has to be the most dangerous slogan to come out of the last twenty years. In our current economic reality, you have to build more units, of all types, in order to have a chance at driving rents down.

Yes it's "supply side." Yes it's "trickle down." But it works, at least enough to make a dent in the problem. Up-market units will house high income people, making fewer of them compete with lower-income people for older, less desirable apartments.

Is it perfect? No. Is it going to result in a completely fair and just world where everyone has low rent and can live wherever they want? No. Is it better than our current plan of building absolutely nothing new anywhere near anything? Hell yes.

The cold hard truth is that in our current reality if you stop building new cars then used cars are going to become astronomically expensive. A similar logic applies here unfortunately.

I really don't think we have a choice in the matter. At least, not if we're gonna have any hope of nyc not going the way of San Francisco: a NIMBY retirement community for people who got in when the getting was good and have locked the gates behind them.

2

ssn156357453 t1_j1rkeyq wrote

at basic level greenwich village is pretty. most of queens is ugly. Rather destroy ugly that pretty neighborhoods.

1

George4Mayor86 t1_j1isf2s wrote

Good. We have plenty of historic buildings, we desperately need more housing.

Want to preserve a building? Make the owner an offer and buy it. Otherwise, pipe down about how other people use their property.

−5

ssn156357453 t1_j1jpkcl wrote

We don’t really have “plenty” london, paris, and Amsterdam have plenty. We have a small minority of old buildings

3